Davis County asks Sunset to identify sites, outlines permanent supportive and transitional housing plans
Loading...
Summary
Davis County staff asked Sunset City to pre-identify areas it would consider permitting for permanent supportive housing and transitional projects, describing project-based vouchers, on-site services and a notional 60-unit project size while pledging county support for mitigation and funding.
Davis County officials on Tuesday asked the Sunset City Council to help speed development of permanent supportive housing (PSH) and transitional housing by identifying areas the city would consider permitting for such projects if a developer and service operator came forward.
At a presentation to the council, Ryan Stein Wiggle, the county’s Community Services manager, and Ryan Parker, the county’s housing and homelessness coordinator, said recent state law changes and county planning have shifted the focus from short‑term winter overflow shelters to year‑round housing models that pair long‑term tenancy with on‑site services. Parker told the council the county’s 2025 point‑in‑time count recorded 127 individuals experiencing homelessness countywide and said many people access shelters in neighboring counties.
“Permanent supportive housing is that everything is on‑site,” Parker said, describing PSH as buildings with integrated case management, medication management and counseling. He said units are typically supported by project‑based Section 8 vouchers tied to the unit, with tenants paying roughly 30–35% of income for rent.
The county stressed it was not applying for permits that night. Instead, Wiggle said staff want municipal planning commissions and councils to identify where they would be willing to consider PSH so the county can coordinate funding and service operators if an opportunity arises. Parker described a notional project size of roughly 60 units for a Davis County community but said designs would vary by local needs.
Council members raised typical small‑city concerns about public‑works impacts, police calls and trash collection. Parker and Wiggle said the county would seek to mitigate those costs with Community Development Block Grant funds and other pots, and that the county would facilitate service operators to run the projects rather than operate housing directly.
Parker also described program rules for noncompliance: programs would pursue interventions, rapid‑rehousing wait lists and shelter placement prior to evictions, but evicted tenants would not receive automatic priority on re‑entry lists. For families and unaccompanied minors the county said it would coordinate with Open Doors, SwitchPoint and other providers to place families and youth in appropriate services.
The council accepted the presentation and asked the county to provide follow‑up materials and contact information for staff. The county left contact details and asked the council to circulate a municipal email so staff could follow up as the county meets other cities.
The county’s request is procedural at this stage; any actual development proposal would require local land‑use review and formal permits before construction or occupancy.